The Sun. — London, England, 1818-01-30 00:00:00

PARLIA MENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, THunspAY, JAN. 29. Ti,t• Ffivi of Liveßpoot. gave notice, in the ab sence of his Noble 14'revol, the Sectet,ry of State for th• llome Department, that the litter would I.ive Monday to present (lei taio Pellets by r, , mou)od of the Prince Itegent, and that it was rotion to move to refer them toa Committee ihr it op4e. 'lle moved that the Lords be sum- Iti , i;irti ;or Munday.—Ordered. PRIVATE BILLS. 1 1,, mot i on of ;h e E.. 111 ot SHAPTITSBUny it W'rl , , , Pll.O no Pe , ition tor a Private Bill !,, v ict,t after Tut slay the 3,1 of iNlarch, nor awy itt•port of the Judges on a Private Bill lifter tri.L.v the lOth of April. ITAP,EAS CORPUS SUSPENSION REPEAL BILL. 'l,+. 13/10GDFN and ether Members of the House tar Commons brought up the Habeas Corpus Sus pension Repeal Rill. Agreed to %vitbottt amendment.—Adjourned till Sdturday. HOUSE OF COMMONS. LUNATIC ASYLUM IN SCOTLAND. Lord BINNiNG pave notice, that on Monday next he woull move for leave to bring in a Bill to.establish District Lunatic Asylums in Scot land. _ Lord 'lv EY presented a Petition from the inhAbitants ui Downpairi(k and others, praying for a repeal of the Window Tax.—licad, and or derrd io lie on the Table. I-1 CORPUS ACT' SUSPENSION REPEAL BILL. .A Message from the Lords brought in the Bill passed by their Lordships yesterday, for repealing the Act of last Session, by which the operation ,f the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, to• ivrilich Bill their Lordships desired the concur r' c:: of this House, The CHANCi , .LLOR Of Me EXCHEQUER said, t;•at as it would be vent 'desirable that this 13111 s!,ouni pass with - as little , deky as possible,' he onld suggest to those Hon. Members who might be disposed to offer to the House any observations on the subject, that it would be better to defer th,m till tie vet y early day on vthich a comtntini e.ithut was to he made to the House. He should himself ab,tain from entering into any discussion of the general question till that d:iy, and would only now move that this Bill be read a first time. Sir \V. BußnotlGns ‘rished the Right Hon, Civittkat:th to name any day, or any nro'oable dav, on which the promisvd communication would be imAde. The CHANCPLLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, So far as he knew he tui4ht name Mumlay as the day. Mr. T;EliNEY—What course WAS it intended to p t wole after the communication was made ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appre beudra that ti , e course to be pursued would be the usual oue on such occasi,us—rhat the House sbouid take into consideration the Ruval co m. mullication relative to the inteinal State of the Country. Mr. 'ft NEY—Witht teas to come next ? Was a Colni)sitice N) a 1 pointed, and was it to he Coolmittee, or a Svieet . Committee---a Commitzev to be elected by ballot, or appointed by Ili(P ion CIIANCELLOII of the EXCHItQUVR said, that as tar as he knew, on Monday a flay would be ap !unwed fur taking the :,lessage into consideration, kw! a Committee for theft purpose would be ap poipted in the UStud way. Mr. TIERNEY—Last year there were two Com mittees of the sane kind appointed in different w.ls,r3; one of thent chosen by ballot, the other appoioted on nomination by motion without I. - I;llotiGnAm said the Hight Hon. Gentle man left the House 11111(.11 in the dark as to the course of proceeding with re*pect to the Commit tee, ‘eliich was the most iwportant pa' t of the whole. lie shift the Commit , ee was to be ap poiiJed " 11l thc. usual way.'• Whi;:li vets t h e IVitV ? Litir there were two ways—by ba!!ot tootioi). The CtiANCFI , LoIt or !he ExCHEO.URR believed that tbe - most pr per mode was to appoint the Committee by Mr. Bitottottam--: , Was the Committee to be appointed on Monday, or some future day? The CHAN.CELLOR of the EXCHEO.UER —The Consideration of the Message would be fit:(l on the eallies( possible day. riThe Rill wus then read a first time. The SPEAKER Observed, that though it was not usual tbAt -a public Bill 'shook' pass thrOugh se ver d Stages on the sante day, there were• no Standing Orders-at present against it. The Bill was then read a second time; and on the.quesihm that it should be committed, Lord.Fot.x"EsToNtr rose:—Fle did not wish to make the sii4htest opposition to the Bill, which he 'thought, should he passed without a moment's (Irboti. hot he complained of the subject being 4nong• t forward hetore the usnal hour; for he s nTe 'there were many Members who would wish to he in their seats while it was passing through the Llonse, in order to express openly their assent to it. It seemed as if Ministers ex pected some opposition to the measure, or at least expected it might give rise to some discussion which they would rather avoid. It appeared to hint' that something4nore was'requisite than mere ly the silent passng of this Bill, A duty was owing 'to petions already taken tip under the Act o f last Session, tunn y of whom might continue a state little worse titan that of actual confine ment, if no more was done than sitnply to repeal the Act. "Un this subject he spoke under correc tion of those more skilled in the Law. B u t as f ar as Inc was able to jud t tge, all dose who had been ta ken uri under the Act, and afterwards dis charged on their recognizance, had been unjustly ts voted, inA•ntuteli as there was no tight to re pilre recognizances front them:- He would wish t.. know, trout the Learned Members, how the Luw vtood upon this point, According to laic notion. no recoplitance could be legally taken, 4 . % „, epSeS Whrt the party accused was con -tiouttd lace to 4 - atte With his accuser. He knew that a man who had been - tried might be bound by recognizance to appear to receive sentence ; hot the cases of the persons apprehended under this Act, so tar as he could see, bore no analogy to the other cases in which it was legal to re ptire recognizances. It he was right in bis un derstanding of the law, the Justices who took recognizances from the persons in question, bad DO right to do so without first confronting them with their accuse's ; and this being tire case, he should think it his ditty to propose two clauses which he haul drawn up, the purport of which was to declare that all recognizances taken from o elsons arrested under the Act of last Session should front henceforward be considered as 'cancelled. Mr. TIRRNEY considered the Secretary of State was bound to give the House the fullest informa tion of the reason and grounds which prevailed upon his Majesty's Goi*Troment to require these parties to enter into these recognizances. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL —The Act passed last Session was one merely to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. It had nothing to d(, with recogni zaoces, and left the law as to them in exactly the sante state as it was before. Whether the recog nizanees taken from persons arrested under the Act of last Session were or were not legal, was a fit question for a Court of Law to determine ; but it had nothing to do with the passing of the Bill now before the House. The taking of recogni zances rested in the discretion of J u stices. Where men were brought before a Magistrate on certain charges, and it was •thought unnecessary to de tain the persons so charged, they might in many cases be relieved, on binding themselves in re cognizances to appear when called upon to an swer to the charges against theln ; and in other cases they might be required to find bail for their appearance. If a recognizance was illegally taken, a Court of Law could set it aside, and was the proper tribunal to pronounce on the legality or il legality of the. case. If the Noble LIM asked whether a Magistrate having a person in custody tinder a warrant issued by himself, has power to discharge the person so in custody, on his en tering into recognizance, in point of law the Magistrate has such power. Unquestion ably a Magistrate in such a case has power to require bail. And why might he require bail It was because by' so doing he obtained the security of another person for the prisoner's ap pearance. A recognizance was a less security, being that by which the prisoner was bound for his own appearance. If it was lawful to require the greater security a fortiori, it was lasetul to require a less ; and the Magistrate might at his discretion require the greater security or the less. In cases of treason, the Magistrate had the same power to require recognizances, with thii diffe rence, that the discretion did not so far rest with him that he could do so without consulting his superior in office, in cases where the apprehen sion was upon the warrant of such .. superior.— Where the committal was upon a warrant from a Secretary of Sta'te, he might, through the Ma gistrate before whom the person apprehended was taken, agree to release that person on his own re cognizance. This had at all times been the prac tice ; the law upon the case was quite established. But it was a mere question of law. If io a cer tain case it was alleged that a recognizance was required by a Magistrate where he had no power to require, the question as to the power was one for the decision of .the Court of King's Bench. — As to the case of those persons who had lately come up before the Court of King's Bench, re quiting to be discharged front their recognizances, the only reason why they had not been discharged before now was, that some of them had given notice that they meant to object to the legality of the recognizances. Soroe of those persons op plied to him, when be told them it was not ins tended to call upon them for their appearance, and that the recognizances should be discharged, on which they said that they mestot to object to the recognizances in point of law. When. this was said, he told 'them that' nothing which he said need to prevent them front any proceeding to try the legality of the recognizances. They decided to reject this offer, and said they would try the questitos at law. Mr. BRAND said, that the Attorney-General seemed to mistake rite tint stion raised by his Noble Friend (Lord Fo:kestont) as being a met e ques tion of laW instead of a question of legislation.— Certain persons btiog confined under a certain Act, so soon as that Act was repealed, ratty further detention of those persons was illegal. But the Attoroev-General said, he bad not moved that the recognizances entered into by those persons so confined should be dichargrrl, because he wished to give theta an opportunity of trying the guess tiros at to time legality of their recognizances.— It therefore appeared, that there was 'sorbing in the object of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's proceedings on this subject **hid) was inconsist ent with the proposal of his Noble Fs lead. The object Of that proposal was solely to afford a re medy to those persons who had been bound by re cognizances under which it was no longer wished, even by the Government, that they should cons throe bound. Lord CASTLEREAGH-1f he rightly understood the operation of the Act passed during the last Session, it was too that it enabled Magistrates or the - Secretary of Stare to detain persons, but that it prevented the Bench from discharging persons so detained. When the law which thus operated was repealed - , the power of discharging would be restored to the Bench. The proposal of the No- , ble Lord might be a very fit subject for the distinct consideration of the House, but was not connected with the Bill now before it ; the object of that Bill being only to restore the law to its operation. Mr. BROUGHAM---14e . bardly thought the Nt,ble Lord rightly understood the observation of the Hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Brand). Undoubtedly the Act of last year made the writ of habeas Corpus inoperative ; and its this respect the Noble Lord (Castlereagh) bad rightly stated the mode in which it operated. But how had the recognizances in question been taken ? It he was right, they had been taken voluntarily. The party detaining said to the party detained—" I give you the choice of continuing itt custody till the Bill under Which you are confined expires, or is repealed, or else you may go out on such and such . coedit ions. If you choose to remain, well and good ; hut if you choose to go, it shall be on the conditions I shall name." These conditions may be what the -detaining party chooses to im pose—such as falling down upon their knees, or in short any thing else. In the present case the condition was, that the party should appear from day to day at a -certain place. Could any one say that these recognizances would have been required from the persons in question if the Act of last Ses sion had not passed ? Therefore it was plain the recognizances flowed from that Act, In all the cases in question, the recognizances had been given under the choice which he had mentioned. There was, indeed, a separate case which* had- not yet come before . the House, but which soon would be ; he meant the case of a London Justice, who had detained three persons arrested before the Act was passed. But in every other case, the recognizances had been entered into under such a In all other cases of arrest, the thing 1-as not done in the dark, and when the man was iberated, he inigliVof course seek his remedy at aw. But here. the power was merely to detain persons, and therefore recognizances taken from lersons detained under that power were taken on lifferent terms. Their legality or illegality was a question purely of law. What the House had to consider was; that they were entered into by choice, and under certain conditions, and the question now was, whether the persons who bad made the election of submitting to the conditions, should be, now when the Act was repealed, in a worse siteation than those who had , chosen the alternative of remaining under confinement. Thinking that it would he most unjust to have them remain subject to' recognizances after the Act was repealed, be conceived it incumbent on the House to adopt the proposal of his Noble Friend. _ choice. The Sor.tcyroa . -GEsertAt. thought the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who spoke last was mistaken RS to the Act of last Session. Suppose that Act had not been passed, would it not have been com petent for, the Secretary.of State to commit per sons in certain cases ? .The question was, whe ther this Act conferred a power on the Secretary of State to take .recognizances from persons COM tnitted. The Act conferred no such power. Its operation was merely to deprive the subject of his remedy in the cases of committal. The House was now about to restore that remedy. What then was the proposal submitted for discussion ? It was (what was quite irrelevant) to pronounce upon the legality of recognizances, respecting which the Act about to be repealed had no opera tion whatever. The legality of these recogni zances was as much open to discussion as ever, whether the Bill now before the House passed or not. This, therefore, was not the proper season for discussing the validity of the recognizances, and as to the proposal which related to them, it was out‘ of place, and could not be rightly adopted on the present occasion. Sir Wm. BURROUGHS maintained that the poWer exercised by the Secretary of State with respect to these recognizances was illegal and usurped.--A condition had been annexed to the release of the persons. in question which the Se cretary of State had no right to exact. tither they should have been released without any con dition, or they should have been put upon their trial. The Law Officers of the Crown gave it as their opinion that Magistrates could admit to bail persons committed upon charges of treason ; but he must deny that Magistrates had any power to exact recognizances where they bad no power to admit to bail. It was admitted that the per sons were kept in custody for a temporary pur pose. And what was that - temporary purpose ? ft was to keep alive the notion that there was danger, and so to gain the support of a party, which, without the cry of danger, the Ministry 'could not have obtained. The question, on the proposal of his Noble Friend, because it related to the mode in which the powers . committed by the Act of last Session had been exercised, was ma teria!ly, connected with the Bill' before the House. Mr. LoctznArcr was decidedly of opinion, that if persons arrested under the Act of last Session were continued in custody, or under the threat of committal, after the Bill now before the Hoitse was passed, it would be against the spirit of the Bill. Therefore he could not but think that to . continue those persons tinder the liability of re tognizance3, was equally against the intention of the Legislature. The Solicitor-General attempted' to defend the recognizances, by saying that They derived their force from the Common Law, and not from the Statutes. But he 'could not see . , Orat this exempted the case from the scope of that intention with which the House was about to pass the Bill. SANUEL ROMILLY.—There was no doubt that the recognizances were extorted from the persons confined under the Act of last Session. — For, in fairness, the Secretary of State, before he required the recognizances, should have ap prised those persons that it was not intended to allow the Act to continue in force till the time when it was limited to expire. Thinking that the Act had existed much too long, it was far from his intention to oppose the present Bill. The House was now passing the Bill with much more rapidity than the ordinary forms reqoired ; and these forms were dispensed wit t h because of the extreme urgency of the occasion. HoW long was it since this extreme urgency occurred ? It was not this day, nor yesterday, nor last week, nor last month, nor for the two last months. In the last Session, when the question was pot upon con tinuing the Bill only till 'the lst of December, in order that it it were judged necessary to-con tinue it longer the opinion of Parliament might be taken as to that necessity, the proposal was rejected. But he would now ask, whether every Member was not satisfied, that if the coutinuance of the Bill had been limited to the Ist of Decem ber, it would not have been allowed then to ex pire, without calling Parliament together to pro pose any further continuance ? It had only con tinued thus long because his Majesty's, Ministers had not thought proper to advise the Prince Re gent to assemble the Parliament sooner. The Bill had been acted upon even_ within a few 'weeks. of the present time, in order to keep up the pretence of its necessity. For his own part, he thought there was no occasion for the Bill since 'Nile, for since then there had been no symptoms of disaf` fection. And as to what had occurred before that time, it was in the month of June that in this House the exposure was made of the conduct of the missionaries employed by his Majesty's 0 ' nisters in exciting insurrections. Mr. B. BATHURST protested against the troth of what the Honourable and Learned Member vi , ho.spoke last had,with his usual candour, stated , that the conspiracies were the work of Govern, ment against the people, and not of one delud e :" part of the people against the other. The per; sons alluded to as employed by' Government 1 0 1 clone nothing in forming conspiracies, but h a " unquestionably been of signal service in detecting them. This was particularly the case with. Mr. Oli ver , who, as it had come out on evidence, ba d accidentally and incidentally been introduced to . the meetings of the conspirators. This fact w° s incontrovertihle, notwithstanding, the dying er clamation of one of the criminals, to which, °I I account of the means taken to procure it, not the slightest importance was to be attached. It ther e were no conspiracies now, it was not because Mr. Oliver was no longer employed by Governme n, but because of the trials which had taken pifte' Ile denied that the Act of last Session could ha ve been sooner repealed consistently with the s afety of the country. Sir S. ROMILLY said, in -explanation, that he did not allude to the employment of Oliver in Par° titular, but to that of other persons of the sa ni . e description. He had higher authority than leis own opinion, that the conspiracies were occasior ed by.the agents of Government, for it was ex e. ; pressly stated in the last Report of the Se e ,' Committee, that persons had promoted t,' 13 4 Treason which they meant to detect. He I ,', heard it maintained (and he was astarthhe" the doctrine) that it was the duty of Governm en t to employ such persons as Mr. Oliver. Norb itti: could ever induce him to think so. Mr. B. BATHURST protested againXt its b eing supposed that all the. persons to whom the 1 4°I1. and Learned Gentleman had alluded • were e nv. ployed by Government. They might, lie e mplor ed. by Magistrates in the neighbourhood, wh i l e . duty it might be avail themselves of Si jC - assistance. Mr. TIERNEY said, that there were two poin.,tie which he understood to be maintained by tos_ Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last. T he was, that R conspiracy existed up to the 20th e ll nnary, the time at which the persons (30 06° were discharged. Now, as to this, he would sfi r t i that if there was one man detained in gaol , . or separated from his family and his occOpatioo 1,, a single hour beyond the time when the CO OP'. racy existed, a crime was committed, an d i -o heavy guilt rested with-the persons who were t means of such detention. The other point been that the persons employed as spies had never he% the cause of any conspiracy. If the report of t"4 approaching Committee did not establish tbes two points, how was the conduct of the Go verr, ment to be justified ? The Bill was then committed, and the (Rep being broUght up, was agreed to. On the-clue lion that the Bill should be read a third time , 0 Lord VOLKESTON IS rose t o p ro p ose big 'llls by way or amendMent. .Th e adopt io„ of clause would not prevent the persons who 11 % given recognizances from having their remedY '", Court of Law upon the question of their dlec ie The Noble Lord then read two clause s, first of which in substance released the recogt'', zors from all the prospective effect of the rec! rii fs ipt lance ; the other contained a saving of ;their ° g t s to apply for remedy to a Court of Law, on gTound of the recognizances being illegal l y 0 quired. He moved that these clauses be added the Bill. gotis e Lord CASTLEREAH observed, that the was placed in an extraordinary sit uatiol b i o ns clauses relating to what was quite distinct nity the subject matter of the Bill. Au opit"r t ` t e o f was afforded of investigating efore a C°',l r eee . Law the validity of the recog b nizances• o i e fore, even with a view to the subject to which clauses related, they were quite unnecessarY• t be Mr. TiatmeY—Nothing was urged agai nst s • clauses except that they related to what a't' las mere point of law. But, in his view, it wos of a point of law, but of humanity ;, to get go t 04 time reengnizances, an expensive legal trial w be necessary. Was it then too much for Pii ( . ment to save the pockets of these u tn f o rtunate' t i e a c dividuals friim this expence, seeing that if had Fcferred remaining in jail for a few (134 they would now be set at large ,by the iterea' • Lord FOLKESTONE EXpl3iliC(.l. dfi t The ATTORNEY•GENERAL—AS to the 11 0 - M i l l is of the case, he must say, that it was ituF° 9s l ; e ir for any one of the persons to have mistaken ("tie situation with respect to the recognizances . to himself had told them that it was his intend ° i i, discharge toe recognizances ; upon which 0 1e. ,,. 0 legality of them was asserted by so me oflfri o t persons. Helhought it his dutyto tell them , if such were their notions, no act of his ' 3 " °l 4 ,f prevent theta of their right to try thevesti oll r e, legality. .'Their' attendance in Court, therefo b, has been on the ground of taking their Irg',ll t e es jection. It was not true, that the recognii 3° , o o were held over their heads in order to e them. It was their own choice that their recqr,j4 nizances should continue in force, and they 11/ /r 3 it is the choice with a view to.a legal remedy.. , i 'dog respect to the clauses proposed, he dente(' i d when an end was put to anAct, it was nec eg )et or proper to pnt an end to every proceeding that Act. For instance, it mil. l lbt still be n e g ' fi ti scary to try persons taken up under the Act' ' t it' yet it might be very proper to repeal the Act f° r t .,,r with ; he therefore could not see any necessi t y the clauses. Mr. BROUGHAM said, be would once mor e , g e deavour to ataie the grounds on which "- of '1 Fr 'rt of the Act__,, clauses were proposed. _ y virtue , -t er last year, persons were arrested, and upo n iug into certain recognizances were disch ar 4:o The recognizances were a voluntary act• pose, then, that those persons went before die Court of King's Bench, to try the legality 0 ‘ •,,) recognizances, wpuld the Court say, that .11"`T;0'4 entered into them with their eyes open, it sc as v o', late to complain that they Were illegal ? Th e Y„ o o luntarily entering into such recogn'zances ,